Privette v. State, Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services on Behalf of Sease, 91-00536
| Decision Date | 09 August 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-00536,91-00536 |
| Citation | 585 So.2d 364 |
| Parties | 16 Fla. L. Weekly D2107 William PRIVETTE, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, on Behalf of Angela SEASE, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Daniel A. David, Sarasota, for petitioner.
Charles L. Carlton of Carlton & Carlton, P.A., Lakeland, for respondent.
William Privette seeks certiorari review of a circuit court order which compels him to submit to a Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA) blood test. We grant the petition.
A paternity action has been brought against Privette by Angela Sease on behalf of her daughter. The child's birth certificate states that Jim Sease, who was and is married to Angela, is the child's father. Nevertheless, Ms. Sease now maintains that Privette is the actual father. The complaint seeks, in addition to a determination of paternity, the award of child support and other costs.
Privette, seeking to avoid the HLA testing procedure, invokes the well-recognized presumption that a child born in wedlock is "the blood issue of the partners of such marriage." Knauer v. Barnett, 360 So.2d 399, 403 (Fla.1978). This presumption has been described as "one of the strongest rebuttable presumptions known to the law." Eldridge v. Eldridge, 153 Fla. 873, 16 So.2d 163 (1944). Privette argues that the heavy burden of proof required to overcome this presumption has not been satisfied by Ms. Sease, who merely utilizes a "standard preprinted [complaint] form" furnished by HRS, while official documents such as the child's birth certificate contain contradictory claims as to paternity.
The facts of this case are remarkably similar to those which recently divided our sister court in Pitcairn v. Vowell, 580 So.2d 219 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Were we to follow the majority's reasoning in that case our inquiry would proceed no farther, for they hold "that a putative father does not have standing to raise the presumption of legitimacy in avoidance of the potential ordering of support for the child." 580 So.2d at 222. However, we believe the better view regarding standing is expressed in the dissenting opinion by Judge Nimmons, wherein he states:
The petitioner's invocation of the presumption of legitimacy serves the salutary purpose out of which the presumption was borne, i.e., maintaining the legitimacy of children. Indeed, precluding the petitioner from invoking the presumption runs counter to that purpose. The fact that the petitioner may benefit from such presumption by demonstrating that the obligation of support rests elsewhere is no reason to bar its use in this case.
Having concluded that Privette does have standing to challenge the order requiring blood testing, we turn to the arguments advanced before the trial court and its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Privette
... ... Boyd & Branch, P.A., Tallahassee, and Chriss Walker, Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Tallahassee, for ... We have for review Privette v. State Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 585 So.2d ... (HRS) pursued this action against William Privette on behalf of a woman who alleged that Privette was the father of her ... ...
-
Spence v. Stewart, 96-4162
... ... child from the absence of visitation, the state could not interfere in the parent/child ... See Privette v. State of Florida, Dep't of Health and ... ...
-
G.F.C. v. S.G., 95-2165
... ... common law, the Florida statutes, or the state and federal constitutions ... presumption of legitimacy in Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Privette, 617 So.2d ... ...
-
Benac v. Bree, s. 91-00892
... ... Privette v. State of Florida, Department of Health and abilitative Services, 585 So.2d 364 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Accordingly, ... ...